Some camps hold the view that a golden rule of positioning and effective branding is to never mention the competition in your advertising. But rules were made to be broken. Especially when breaking them results in great creative, clear messaging and potential word of mouth value.
The Apple versus PC (aka Microsoft) is a case in point over the years.
Apple has clearly cornered the creative niche in this genre, literally taking a hammer to the competition and effectively demonstrating that there is such a thing as geek chic. From the iconic Chiat Day 1984 Apple Macintosh Super Bowl spot touted as the best TV commercial of all time, down to the recent spots Mac versus PC spots starring John Hodgman and Justin Long that are cute and entertaining (as far as 30 second spots go), the competition has paled.
Enter Research In Motion‘s Blackberry and the new era of mobile wars. The spirit of this spot below literally “takes a shot” at Apple in a simple and smart way. Visually relevant and memorable. No over thinking here.
As with the personal computer market, there is a lot at stake with mobile brand and product positioning over the long-term. And, these are still early days. One has to wonder if this is a one-off or, if there long term viability for RIM’s to approach Apple’s prowess on this front as each execution can be a very risky proposition. At the end of the day, though,competition is good. But it is even better when it yields powerful creative, so let the battle wage on.UPDATE: As suspected, this was a consumer generated video (I’m told it was likely done by an agency or other professional outfit, but was unsolicited and not sanctioned or endorsed by RIM). It was not aligned with RIM’s standards for advertising or branding. And, although I do like the simplicity of it, it makes a lot more sense with that in mind. Apologies for not nailing down the source of the video in the original post.

What if that picture of your kids you put on your Facebook profile shows up in an advertisement? What about that note you wrote, or picture you created getting reprinted or used somewhere else online or in print? Even this post, written here on my blog but fed to Facebook as update to my profile, is susceptible.
How much is that worth to you, emotionally or even monetarily?
Truth is that most people with profiles on Facebook don’t know that Facebook (the company) can use whatever you put there for themselves, or is allowed to sub-license your content to others to use for whatever purpose they see fit. That has been policy as long as I can remember (since I signed up that is). After considering what it meant for my purposes I was okay with it. The “out” always seemed to be either removing content or closing your account.
End of story, right? Well, no. That is no longer the case.
As of February 4 2009, Facebook now claims the right to profile content forever, no matter if you remove it or close your account. Facebook previously stated:

“You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.”

Those lines have now been removed and profile content will now survive removal of materials or termination of service.
Forever is a long time.
Those who pay attention to the legal ramifications of Terms and Conditions and Terms of Service agreements, and take concern with the privacy implications and appropriate usage of content posted via social networks, are brewing a well-deserved storm over the subtle but significant changes from Facebook.
A couple of quick summaries of the issue can be found on The Consumerist or Marketing Vox.David Weinberger posted a link to a Facebook group opposed to the new Terms of Service and there are about 6,500 people already signed up. The mission of the group states:

We would like to have the Terms of Service changed back to how they were before Feb 4th 2009, including these lines:
“You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content”

The majority of users are most probably unaware of the Terms of Service to begin with and, the average Joe or Jane on Facebook likey have no clue that changes were made. Ask yourself how often you read legal stuff before you click ” I agree”? Ignorance is bliss. So, the word needs to spread.
How about you? What does this mean to you? Do you care? Will it change your use of Facebook?
Do you plan to join the group and spread the word?
Update: Forgot to include Mark Zuckerberg’s note about it AND a great post from Amanda French comparing TOS from MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, LinkedIn and other sites to FaceBook.

The newspaper industry has been discussed, reviewed and analyzed in every facet, almost to the point of being over discussed these days. What is known for certain is that the old model is not working anymore and the future holds a raft of foundational changes. What is unclear are any clear answers on how to effectively make those changes even with all the ideas, theories and potential tactics being tossed around.
So, from what you can assess, is it a dying industry? Is there hope for survival? Are the reports of its death greatly exaggerated? Or is just a period of adjustment and realignment as they change the revenue model (that is, if they can)?
We’ve seen the strong opinions and predictions from all angles on the debate. All I know from my perch is that I still love opening my Globe and Mail and diving in. It is still worth what I pay for my subscription (except on rainy days when it arrives nice and soggy…grrr). That said, while I hope it does not go away, the reality is that it no longer represents my prime source of news. And, I’ll take a guess that it is not yours either.
Shedding some light on the state of the print business, Charlie Rose has just begun a new series on the future of newspapers. The first round was an interesting discussion with guests Mort Zuckerman of the New York Daily News, Robert Thomson of the Wall Street Journal and Walter Issaacson of Time. It was a nice kick off and laid down some of the basic issues that the industry faces with no shortage of dialogue in terms of what is required to help it get back on its feet.
What do you think? Are newspapers still a prime source of information for you? If your printed pages were to disappear, would you care? Is it a ritual that you could easily forget or replace? And, what the heck are bird lovers and new pet owners going to line cages with if print goes down for the count?
Enjoy the discussion (it starts at 28 minutes into the clip).http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-3817658677236015969&hl=en&fs=true

Some interesting stuff in the world of Twitter this week that caught my eye. I typically stray from wading into such matters, but it is always interesting to note what is going on in these new social channels and the implications of less than productive behaviors.
Ian Capstick of Media Style has a good summary of National Post reporter David George-Cosh who launched a mini Twitter tirade this week at April Dunford, formerly of Nortel (whom I met a while back when we were both judges for the Canadian Investment Awards). The issue at hand seems to be that April apparently did not return David’s calls which resulted in the exchange captured in the image below (photo credit to Media Style). Warning … there are a few F-bombs contained in the back and forth.
Hey David, maybe she’s just not that into you.
Anyhow, it reminded me of some items to keep in mind with Twitter:
1. Think before you publish. It is your personal long tail of content, your own digital graffiti. Digital graffiti is different as it does not get covered up with other graffiti. It spreads and remains searchable. The instantaneous nature of Twitter can get you in hot water if you are careless.
2. Understand the community. It is not just your friends or colleagues that are listening. What you think may be an innocent comment could easily blow up (re: the unintended Fed Ex mess from Key Influencer James Andrews)
3. Take the high road. Say something positive and avoid becoming “that guy/girl”. It is too easy to join in with the “pile-on” mentality and become part of the trash talk crowd (no matter who is in the right). Those who differentiate themselves usually find the insight and communicate it without having to slam anyone.
4. Add value. Twitter is powerful and interesting (at least I find it to be) when others pointed to great content and topical information/events/memes. I am more interested in what others are reading than what they are doing. “I’m walking the dog” updates are don’t do it for me. Make us laugh, think and read more stuff we would not otherwise find.
5. Not all conversations should be made public. Ask yourself, “is it more appropriate or better suited to use the direct message feature, or perhaps even an old school email?
6. Bring someone new into the conversation outside of your industry. Twitter is extending its reach beyond the early adopters and the typical participants in the echo-chamber. It is becoming more and more mainstream. There are many interesting people and personalities from politicians to celebrities, journalists and others walks of life adding color and commentary to the space.
Bottom line is that it is almost too easy to get on board and start using Twitter. There is no learners permit. Best advice is to look before you leap because it is not fun to learn the hard way.
While we are on the topic of Twitter, Tweetdeck has just sent out an update (if you are not using Tweetdeck, you are missing out on a robust way to tap into the platform). It is a rocking Adobe Air application that includes an embedded tiny URL feature and displays columns for sorting who you are following direct messages, favourites, hash tags and the like. The update also allows you to translate from other native languages and a neat new feature Stock Twits. Check it out.